Saturday, January 23, 2016

As if the presidential contests on both sides of the aisle are not unpredictable and turbulent enough, now Michael Bloomberg is said to be reconsidering a run for the White House as an independent. Like Trump, Bloomberg could largely self-fun his campaign and would offer a far more sane option than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz should they win the GOP nomination. Bloomberg's decision may hinge on whether or not Hillary Clinton reorder her campaign and look to be a sure victor over a Trump or Cruz candidacy. Were Bloomberg to run and win, the political calculus in Washington, D.C., would be definitely scrambled. The New York Times looks at Boomberg's rethinking of an independent run. Here are excerpts:

Michael R. Bloomberg
has instructed advisers to draw up plans for a potential independent
campaign in this year’s presidential race. His advisers and associates
said he was galled by Donald J. Trump’s
dominance of the Republican field, and troubled by Hillary Clinton’s
stumbles and the rise of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont on the
Democratic side.

Mr. Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York City,
has in the past contemplated running for the White House on a
third-party ticket, but always concluded he could not win. A confluence
of unlikely events in the 2016 election, however, has given new impetus
to his presidential aspirations.

Mr. Bloomberg, 73, has already taken concrete steps toward a possible
campaign, and has indicated to friends and allies that he would be
willing to spend at least $1 billion of his fortune on it, . . . He has set a deadline for making a final decision in early March, the
latest point at which advisers believe Mr. Bloomberg could enter the
race and still qualify to appear as an independent candidate on the
ballot in all 50 states.

His
aides have sketched out a version of a campaign plan that would have
the former mayor, a low-key and cerebral personality, give a series of
detailed policy speeches backed by an intense television advertising
campaign. The ads would introduce him to voters around the country as a
technocratic problem-solver and self-made businessman who understands
the economy and who built a bipartisan administration in New York.

Mr.
Bloomberg would face daunting and perhaps insurmountable obstacles in a
presidential campaign: No independent candidate has ever been elected
to the White House, and Mr. Bloomberg’s close Wall Street ties and
liberal social views, including his strong support for abortion rights
and gun control, could repel voters on the left and right.

But
his possible candidacy also underscores the volatility of a
presidential race that could be thrown into further turmoil by a
wild-card candidate like Mr. Bloomberg.

If
Republicans were to nominate Mr. Trump or Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a
hard-line conservative, and Democrats chose Mr. Sanders, Mr. Bloomberg —
who changed his party affiliation to independent in 2007 — has told allies he would be likely to run.

“Mike
Bloomberg for president rests on the not-impossible but somewhat
unlikely circumstance of either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz versus Bernie
Sanders,” said Mr. Rendell, a close ally of Mrs. Clinton’s who is also a
friend of Mr. Bloomberg’s. “If Hillary wins the nomination, Hillary is
mainstream enough that Mike would have no chance, and Mike’s not going
to go on a suicide mission.”

In a three-way race featuring Mr. Sanders and Mr. Bloomberg, Mr. Rendell said he might back the former New York mayor.

Setting
a March deadline for making a decision allows Mr. Bloomberg to see how
Mrs. Clinton and the more mainstream Republican candidates fare in the
early primaries. And because of his vast wealth, there is no downside in
laying the groundwork for a possible campaign, even if he ultimately
decides against it.

Even
a victory by Mrs. Clinton in the Democratic primaries might not
preclude a bid by Mr. Bloomberg, his associates said, if he believed she
had been gravely weakened by the contest.

I am often asked how I managed to stay in the closet for 37 years, especially when questioners learn that I have three children (and now grandchildren). It is hard to explain and convey to people the lengths that one will go to deceive themselves as to the reality of one's sexual orientation. Living in the closet is a life of deception, but first and foremost deception of one's self. The motivation, of course, is to avoid rejection by friends and family and often religious based brainwashing. The irony is, however, that even as one goes through all sorts of mental gyrations to deny reality, in your heart you know the truth. Especially when it comes to falling in love with someone of the same gender and never being able to tell them your feelings because you don't want to lose their friendship. A piece I came across in Queerty reminded me of the heartache and pain the closet entails and how too may young LGBT individuals never get to have normal teen years with love and romance. Here are highlights:

[W]hat happens when that puppy dog crush doesn’t find its natural closure
early on? It must happen all the time. Grade school becomes high school.
High school graduates to college, and all those secret feelings stay
red hot beneath the surface, always wanting to erupt but knowing better
than to ruin the deep and meaningful friendship cultivated over the
years.

At 14, John (we’ll call him John) met a boy who would become his best
friend, and so much more. “I spent many sleepless nights wondering why
everything had to turn out this way, it crushed me every time I thought
about it,” he writes.
“Over the course of the rest of high school my feelings of love
gradually faded to where I could think of him as a brother, rather than
someone I lusted for, although it wasn’t easy.”

Now both 18 and attending separate colleges, John knew he had to
reveal two secrets — two coming outs — to his friend. Telling someone
“I’m gay” is one thing, but “I’m gay and have secretly been in love with
you” is a whole other bag.

“Most of the reason I decided I had to quell these feelings was
because he has a girlfriend whom he is committed to and I didn’t want to
cause them any disrespect through my actions, words, or thoughts. I
cared for him and wanted him to be happy and to do that I wanted to
ensure that his relationship with his girlfriend was unadulterated from
my feelings towards him.”

But the moment had arrived. John built up his courage and managed to
come out to his friend, leaving out the bit about being in love with
him. Baby steps.

“I was euphoric. He began to ask me what I looked for in a guy, how
long I’ve felt this way, just everything. To finally be able to tell how
I felt and discuss it with someone who cares was something I had never
experienced before in respect to sexuality. It really sucks having to
bottle it up as so many of us have done or are currently doing. As I
described to him what my ideal guy would look like, he asked me if I
thought he was attractive because my description very closely matched
someone with his characteristics. I said yes.”

That’s when the whole truth spilled out — the years of silent agony, the longing and the lust. He said that he doesn’t hate me for feeling that way, rather he was flattered that I cared about him that much…

He holds nothing against me and doesn’t treat me any differently than he
did before, he even said he wouldn’t mind sharing a bed with me again.
He reaffirmed my belief that a true friend doesn’t care whether or not
you like dick or pussy, nor will they hold your feelings against you. I
love this guy with every fiber of my being for giving me the best
relationship of my life so far.”

Even while striving to convince myself that I was straight, I had my crushes over the years. However, I never expressed my feelings. In some cases, I know my feelings would have been viewed with horror and that the target of my feelings perhaps were not true friends. In others, I continue to wonder at times "what if I had told him?" I do know this, the love I felt was real and the heartache and pain was terrible.

Vladimir Putin pictures himself as Russia's new Tsar yet seemingly hasn't learned the lessons of what happened to the real tsars at times when the economy went to hell and foreign wars no longer distract the populous from the inept management of the country. With the price of oil having plunged further this past week, Russia's oil revenue based government budget is seeing huge deficits and the Russian people are seeing benefits and services slashed. In the past when the ruling regime has not been able to continue to meet expectations of improving living standards, governments, both tsarist and communist have fallen. The New York Times looks at the situation which one can only hope may hasten Putin's rule. As has been the case too often over the centuries, the Russian people have been betrayed by a failed leader who has plunder the country along with his cronies. Here are article highlights:

The global collapse in oil prices
is reordering economic relations around the world, but the change is
particularly daunting for Russia, which relies on energy exports for 50
percent of its federal budget.

In December, President Vladimir V. Putin told the nation
that the worst of the recession — the economy shrank 3.9 percent and
inflation hit 12.9 percent in 2015 — was over and that modest growth
would return in 2016. He has been pushing the oil collapse as an
“opportunity” that will wean Russia off energy imports and diversify the
economy.

Then in January oil fell below $30 per barrel, with no bottom in sight, and the ruble hit a record low of nearly 85 to the dollar before recovering slightly.

The
last time oil prices dropped so low and stayed there, in the 1980s, the
Soviet Union disintegrated. Steadily rising prices since 2000 have
lifted Russia out of poverty and economic chaos, buoying the prosperity
of many Russians with it. Mr. Putin was lucky enough to be president for
much of that period, but he now faces an extended decline, with real
incomes shrinking.

With the federal budget
approved in December based on oil at $50 a barrel, Anton Siluanov, the
finance minister, announced that the country faced a budget deficit of
about $40 billion, and ministries were ordered to cut spending 10
percent. Budgets were similarly guillotined last year.

Food prices
rose 20 percent last year, according to official statistics, but often
Russians say their grocery tab is up by a third or more, thanks in part
to sanctions Moscow slapped on Western food imports in retaliation for sanctions the West imposed over Ukraine.

“Nobody is starving yet, but incomes are definitely down,” he said,
noting that homes are colder, that neighbors turn on just two lamps
after dark where they once used five and that people have stopped buying
new clothes. Retail sales across Russia were down by 13.1 percent for
the year ending in November, according to official statistics, with car
sales off nearly 40 percent.

Albeit
poorer, Russia remains a petro state, so there are pockets of plenty.
Rolls-Royce reported a 5 percent jump in sales last year, the rich
splurging as the value of their assets nose-dived.

Others
just seemed oblivious. Moscow’s City Hall advertised for tenders for
its banquets, noting that menu items should include foie gras and Parma
ham (which is banned elsewhere in Russia because of sanctions).

Social media erupted in mocking resentment. One Russian quoted a famous
line by the Russian poet Vladimir Mayakovski from the 1917 revolution,
“Eat pineapples, munch your grouse!” and left unstated the second line,
“Your last day is coming, bourgeois!”

Russian involvement in wars in Ukraine and Syria has swelled the general
whirlpool of anxiety, with the possibility of a global war discussed on
state-run television. Some analysts accuse the Kremlin of deliberately
seeking overseas adventures to distract people from domestic economic
woes.

Some
residents, like Mr. Titov, groused that the wealth was being wasted on
prestige projects rather than helping ordinary people. Still, he does
not expect Russians to sour on Mr. Putin any time soon. In nearby Sochi,
Russia spent around $50 billion to host the 2014 Winter Olympics, and a
similar construction juggernaut is building stadiums nationwide for the
2018 World Cup.

“The
Russian people got what they wanted, a czar ruling the country,” he
said of Mr. Putin. “What we need is an effective manager, but what we
got is the Olympics, soccer and war.”

In 1913 the Romanov dynasty lavishly celebrated its three hundredth - four years later the dynasty was overthrown. Is Mr. Putin paying attention or is he too busy envisioning himself as a combination of Napoleon and Hitler?

While things on the GOP side of the aisle in presidential campaigns can only be described as insane, on the Democrat side, there is unexpected turmoil and Hillary Clinton's cake walk to the party nomination is seemingly burned to a crisp. The result is what some describe as panic in the Clinton campaign as attempts are made to figure out what went wrong. Here are highlights from one piece that argues that Hillary's problems stem from her own actions and bad choices, both past - e.g., the freaking private e-mail server - and present:

Panic now grips the Clinton campaign. Polls show Bernie Sanders surging to a dramatic lead in New Hampshire and closing in Iowa. The Washington Post reports that Hillary's national numbers are dropping faster
now than they did in 2008. The Clinton campaign has started throwing
everything and the kitchen sink at Sanders, with the gutter award
captured, thus far, by Senator Claire McCaskill who smeared him with the "hammer and sickle," transparently attributing the red-baiting to future Republican attacks of her own imagination.

But the question isn't what's wrong with Bernie -- he's soaring
beyond all expectations. The question is what's wrong with Hillary? She
has universal name recognition, unparalleled experience, the support of
the big money and the political gatekeepers, the Hollywood glitz, the
best political operatives, the pollsters, the ad makers, the
establishment policy mavens, and political press coverage. Having
learned from 2008, she's got the best ground operation in the history of
Iowa caucuses that still may rescue her there. But she's sinking
rapidly against a 73-year-old political maverick who is still just
introducing himself to the American people.

Already the inevitable Clinton circular firing squad has begun firing
its salvos: We should have gone negative on Bernie earlier. We should
have used Bill more... or less. We shouldn't have bet the house on the
first four primaries. Woulda, shoulda, coulda.

Inevitably, any Clinton campaign carries a lot of baggage that simply has to be overcome. . . . What is plaguing the Clinton campaign are less the sins of the past than
the strategic choices of the present -- particularly her decision to be
the candidate of big money.

Her ability to raise money helped scare away other potential
contenders. Her continued commitment to this path is symbolized by the $33,400 a plate dinner
Warren Buffet is hosting for her in Washington, D.C. on the eve of the
Iowa caucuses. People who can afford $33,400 for one seat at the table
aren't exactly the working people Hillary claims to champion.

Sanders, of course, made a different decision. . . . . He doesn't have anything like a traditional campaign
fundraising operation. That independence gives both force and integrity
to his core message that it is time to take back our democracy from the
"billionaire class," the entrenched interests, and the Wall Street
banksters.

Clinton argues that she favors fundamental campaign finance reform,
but she can't "unilaterally disarm." Deep pocket Republicans are
amassing huge war chests to assault her. She has to be armed with big
money to defend herself.

But in doing so, Clinton "unilaterally disarmed" her own credibility.
The Clinton family foundation and the family fortune have been built
with large contributions
and lavish "speaking fees," significantly from the biggest financial
interests in the country. Wall Street made Hillary herself a millionaire . . . .

The result is corrosive. When Clinton insists that her Wall Street
reforms are far tougher than those of Bernie Sanders and Martin
O'Malley, it rings false. She attacks Sanders for supporting Medicare
for All which naturally is the bête noire of the private health
insurance and drug companies.

When Sanders invoked the $600,000 Clinton received from Goldman Sachs
alone in speaking fees (a bank that just agreed to pay $5 billion
essentially for mortgage fraud) in the last debate, her only defense was
to suggest that a similar criticism would apply to Barack Obama who
also raised money from Wall Street.

This helps explain the remarkable excitement that Sanders has
generated among the young. He passionately champions popular big reforms
-- tuition free college, a $15 minimum wage, Medicare for all, a bold
climate change agenda, breaking up the big banks and more. And his
integrity and credibility are affirmed by his commitment to funding his
campaign with the support of millions of citizens, not the big money of
special interests.

As Greg Sargent of the Washington Post notes,
Hillary's credibility gulf also undermines her argument about
"electability." Democrats have a natural majority among the electorate,
but only if they turn out. Even the Clinton campaign has been worried
about whether HRC can generate the excitement among the rising American
electorate to get them to the polls. Now, they worry about whether
Sanders will generate so much excitement that he will flood the Iowa
caucuses and primaries with a wave of new voters.

There's more. Ultimately, the issue is one of electing a Democrat in November. Either Hillary or Bernie will be light years better than any of the GOP contenders, all of whom would lessen my - and may other people's - legal rights.

Speaking of the insanity plaguing the Republican Party, a pissing contest has arisen among Ted Cruz and some of the most lunatic elements of the Christofascists over the validity of Cruz's religiosity which he wears constantly on his sleeve as he prostitutes himself to the most deranged elements of the GOP base. Some of the attacks on Cruz trace to Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum who are at the bottom of the polls having seen their theocratic message fall flat. Others trace to equally scary elements of the professional Christian crowd. The upshot is that Cruz is now making statements that were they said by a non-Christian - or Heaven forbid, a Muslim - that would have Cruz's audience screaming treason and demanding deportation. Cruz's defense to the attacks on his religiosity: that he is a Christian first and American second. Daily Kos looks at the batshitery. Here are highlights:

His Christianity is probably the last thing Ted Cruz ever thought
would give him problems. However, a new ad produced by Americans United
for Values attacks him for being,
get this, a “false prophet.”

Among other slings and arrows hurled, the
ad slams Cruz for not tithing—donating 10 percent of his income to
charity—something many Christians believe is a sacred obligation. Cruz,
it seems, has donated only about one percent of his income—which came to around $1 million annually—to charity between 2006 and 2010.

In response to the ad and other attacks on his Christianity as well as his conservatism, Cruz responded:

“I’m a Christian first, American second, conservative third and
Republican fourth...I’ll tell ya, there are a whole lot of people in
this country that feel exactly the same way.”

The politics of this aside, I want to highlight here something we might
call Christian Privilege. Could you imagine, for example, a Jewish
candidate for president saying that he or she was a Jew first and an
American second? Now imagine the sheer outrage if a Muslim American of
any prominence whatsoever declared that he or she was Muslim first and
American second. People’s heads would explode.

I demand, a president whose
first loyalty is to the Constitution, and to the people—all the
people—he or she was elected to serve. Only a Christian has the
privilege—and only ones like Ted Cruz, who present themselves as holier
than thou, would have the gall—to claim otherwise.

Can we send Cruz back to Canada? I suspect they would not want him either!

As one who has condemned the Republican Party's embrace of ignorance, religious extremism and increasingly blatant racism for a very long time - I left the formally resigned from the GOP roughly 15 years ago when I could no longer stand the batshitery and nastiness of the "godly Christians" being voted onto the City Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia Beach - I feel as if I was a Cassandra long ignored by one time colleagues who refused to see the poison seeping into the party. Of late - and very belatedly - I suddenly find myself joined by a chorus of "moderate Republicans" and "conservatives" who are lamenting the insane asylum the GOP has become perhaps best embodied by Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. In today's Washington Post Kathleen Parker joins the cavalcade of those warning of the end of the GOP and takes on a tone one more often expects from Maureen Dowd. Admittedly, Parker has vented vigorously on occasion before. This time, she targets those who for too long did nothing to stem the metastasizing cancer in the party while gloating over short term election victories. Here are column highlights:

At first it seemed too weirdly awful to be true, but there she was: Sarah Palin standing next to Donald Trump on Tuesday and endorsing him for president.

Like
previously conjoined twins who had shared a brain before Ben Carson
separated them, these two anti-everything, post-lamestream media
instigators presented themselves as political doppelgangers, a he/she,
yin-yang, sis-boom-bah political marriage of the carnival barker and the
bearded lady.

The challenge for those of us in the observation business is to
illuminate what’s plainly obvious without offending those who prefer not
to see. But there’s no winning once passions are engaged, and hating
the messenger is a time-honored tradition. Even though it was, in fact,
obvious in 2008 that Palin was out of her league, as I pointed out
in a column, her fans wouldn’t hear of it. About 20,000 of them took
time out of their busy schedules to send me emails expressing their
displeasure. . . . . The whole
episode was instructive in multiple ways, but most important, it
foretold a dumbing down of the GOP that eight years later may prove
irreversible.

Into a blizzard of irony gallops National Review with a “symposium”
of opinions from noted conservative writers saying what must be said:
Trump is terrible for conservatism (because he isn’t a conservative) and
that populist demagoguery and vulgarity have no place in the party. You
don’t say!

The irony, which is so delicious I may
skip the chocolate sauce and forgo the cherry, is that this same
publication dropped my syndicated column not long after it ran
my Palin column. Hoopla and all that. And now suddenly, the editors,
one of whom all but telepathically dated Palin, are blind to the former
governor’s charms, opposing her choice for president in the strongest
terms.

One wonders only what took them so long to say what has been plainly obvious for months.
It
must be difficult for some of these writers to go out on a limb like
this and recognize in Trump what they were unable to see in Palin in
2008. Trump, to his credit, has managed to clarify matters for them.

Her erstwhile siren call was mostly siren, her formerly hopey-changey,
winky-blinky charm turned cranky-wanky and shrill. “You ready for a
commander in chief . . . who will let our warriors do their job and go
kick ISIS ass?” she shrieked.

[I]t looks as though Republicans may get what they deserve — a bombastic,
bellicose, self-aggrandizing, mean-streaked, golf-cheating, bullying
narcissist without plans or policies beyond his own, no doubt fickle,
fantasies. Once Republicans forced the party to take the governor of Alaska
seriously as a vice presidential candidate, they opened a populist door
that they’ll not easily shut.

[N]ow we have Trump, who has Palin, who has cemented
the anti-intellectual, anti-“elitist” fervor of the Republican base.
William F. Buckley’s conservatism seems headed for the door, and
National Review deserves plenty of blame. There is, alas, no one left to
stand athwart history and yell, stop!

The question that puzzles me is this: how and why can anyone remotely sane and decent remain a Republican? And let's be honest on one other thing. Ted Cruz is as bad or worse than Donald Trump.

As previously noted, conservative columnist Michael Gerson for too long ignored the metastasizing cancer in the Republican Party base evidenced by the rise of Christofascists, Tea Partiers and white supremacists in the party. Now, Gerson and others are belatedly sending out a clarion call over the results of the GOP establishment's handiwork. The seeming alliance of Donald Trump and Darah Palin underscores the sickness of today's GOP. Here are excerpts from Gerson's latest column in the Washington Post:

The arrival of Sarah Palin brings a special
something to the 2016 campaign, like a little LSD added to the punch
bowl. Are we watching C-SPAN, or a reality TV show, or a “Saturday Night Live” skit? It is impossible to tell without consulting the channel guide.

Ted Cruz may have secured the coveted “ Duck Dynasty ” blessing. But Palin is the original and best representative of Kardashian conservatism. Her endorsement
of Donald Trump was entirely devoid of policy content — a speech that
did not even aspire to shallowness. It is enough that Trump is “going rogue” and “ticking people off” and “media heads are spinning.”

Palin has been entirely consumed and replaced by her own bitterness
against a Republican establishment she feels betrayed her and against a
media that mocked her. More than anything else, she clings to resentment
and rage. And her revolution, over time, has become comprehensive; not
just a revolt against elites, but a revolt against syntax and taste and
preparation and reason.

Does populism need to be anti-intellectual? The answer is: No! . . . . Populism, by definition, is anti-elitist. But that is very different from being anti-intellectual.

In this vacuity, Palin and Trump are a perfect match. They both
embrace a politics of personality, a politics at war with reason. Who
would go to either for advice on Medicare reform or Syria policy? In the
two-dimensional politics of Palin and Trump, depth is not even a
category. There is only establishment vs. anti-establishment, weakness
vs. strength.

The danger of an
anti-intellectual politics is that it quickly becomes unmoored from real
problems and real answers. In U.S. history, anti-intellectual populism
has often become conspiratorial, focusing anger against powerful and
imaginary enemies: the Masons, the international bankers, the Jesuits,
the munitions- makers.

Trump attacks refugees as a serious potential source of terrorism —
though the nearly two-year process of being selected by the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, then intensively screened by
various U.S. agencies, makes this method of infiltration absurdly
difficult. He says many undocumented immigrants are rapists and drug
dealers — an absurd claim with no empirical basis. He blames immigrants
for depressed wages in the United States — though this effect is small
and swamped by other factors such as globalization and technological
change.

Trump is not proposing obnoxious solutions to real challenges; he is
promoting obnoxious solutions to fake or wildly exaggerated challenges.
His anti-intellectualism is severing the ties between the GOP and
reality. If Republicans choose to inhabit the Trump-Palin world, they
will offer little of value to our own.

Compared to areas to the north and west of Hampton Roads, the coming storm should be relatively mild. Nonetheless, we can expect a local freak out and the poor driving skills of local drivers being made painfully obvious. Here's the forecast via the Virginian Pilot:

It’ll be a wet and windy weekend in Hampton Roads.

The National
Weather Service has a high-wind watch in effect for tonight through
early Sunday. Parts of the region could see gusts up to 55 mph.

Officials warn drivers of hazardous conditions, especially for vehicles with a high center of gravity.
In
addition, a significant winter storm is expected to bring snow in the
late morning, turning into rain this afternoon. An accumulation of less
than an inch of snow is possible.

The service has a coastal flood watch in effect from 4 a.m. to noon Saturday. Snow or sleet is possible late in the day.

It
should start to clear by Sunday, with a chance for showers earlier,
turning to a mostly sunny and breezy day in the upper 30s.

I wish I was in Key West right now!! And I wish I didn't have to drive to Virginia Beach oceanfront to meet with a client today. :(

The GOP presidential contest seems to go from one new low to another, making it clear that any Democrat is preferable to any of the GOP clown car occupants. For Democrats, therefore, the issue becomes one of which of the two leading Democrats can win not just the primary contest but the general election contest in November 2016. As previously noted, I am on the fence and I am most concerned about insuring a GOP defeat since the prospect of any of the GOP slate in the White House is downright frightening. A piece in the Daily Kos argues that Bernie Sanders is the better choice against Hillary Clinton. I'd love to hear readers' thoughts on this. Here are article highlights:

I’m beginning to believe Bernie Sanders can win the Democratic nomination and then the presidency.

Since Bernie announced his candidacy, I’ve been torn. On the one
hand, I’ve long admired Sanders. It’s hard not to respect someone who
was born the same year that I was and has paid his dues as a liberal
activist and politician. On the other hand, I feel it’s time for a
woman to be President and I like Hillary. And, given the slate of truly
dreadful candidates, any Democrat is preferable to whomever the GOP
eventually nominates.

For the past eight months I’ve told anyone who asked me, “I believe
Hillary will win the Democratic nomination. But, Bernie’s candidacy
serves a useful purpose: it will push Hillary to the left.” Meanwhile,
the contest exposed Clinton’s weaknesses and demonstrated Sanders can
harness the energy of the “activist” part of the Democratic base.

Nonetheless, my decision whom to support for the Democratic
nomination does not come down to policies or gender or age (although in
an ideal campaign I would prefer to support a younger progressive
woman); it’s refusing to be satisfied with the Democratic Party
“business as usual” process.

There’s two wings of the Democracy Party: an activist wing filled
with “do gooders” who, each day, slog through the peace and justice
trenches taking on issue after issue. And an establishment wing
composed of “people of privilege,” the Democratic portion of “the one
percent.”

In 2016, Bernie represents the activists and Hillary the establishment. On May 6th,
when I saw Hillary in San Francisco, she talked about the role of money
in American politics, “fixing our dysfunctional political system and
getting unaccountable money out of it even if that takes a
constitutional amendment.” However, since then Hillary has run as an
establishment Democrat. Bernie Sanders has made money in politics his
central issue.

When each candidate was asked what she or he would do to bring the
country together, Bernie replied, “The real issue is that Congress is
owned by big money and refuses to do what the American people want them
to do.”

When asked about his Wall Street policy, Bernie Sanders responded:

The first difference [between him and Clinton] is I don’t
take money from big banks. I don’t get personal speaking fees from
Goldman Sachs… But here is the issue, Secretary [Clinton] touched on it,
can you really reform Wall Street when they are spending millions and
millions of dollars on campaign contributions and when they are
providing speaker fees to individuals? [$600,00 to Clinton in one year.]

In 2016, Hillary Clinton is running the same campaign as Barack Obama
in 2008. Obama was an establishment Democrat, a person of privilege,
running on progressive policies but not addressing the issue of money in
politics.

Clinton has three weaknesses: First, she does not have a central
campaign theme, a core message. (On Sunday night she offered, “I want
to be a president who takes care of the big problems and the problems
that are affecting the people of our country everyday.”)

Second, she’s identified as a Washington insider. Likely Republican
nominee, Donald Trump, has surged to the lead of the Republican pack by
running as an outsider. He’s effectively channeled voters’ anger at
Washington by positioning himself as a maverick who doesn’t need to
accept contributions from big money. If Clinton were the Democratic
nominee, Trump could attack her as part of the Washington establishment
and as someone beholden to big money.

Finally, a lot of voters don’t like Hillary Clinton.

Don’t misunderstand me. If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee
then I will support her. But now that I think Bernie Sanders has a
chance to win the nomination, I’m going to push him (even if he is an
old white guy) because he’s got a winning message, strong progressive
values; and is most likely to ignite the Democratic activist base.

The key question is whether or not Bernie Sanders can win independents and moderate voters. The activist base of the Democrat Party is not enough to guaranty victory in November.

Despite the victory for same sex marriage, much still needs to be done before LGBT Americans will have full equality under the laws. Sadly, a new Harris Poll finds that most Americans are clueless on the issues and discrimination that LGBT individuals face. They are similarly blind about the plague of LGBT homeless youth - most thrown out by their "godly Christian" parents and families - HIV treatment and support, and many other issues. The Daily Beast looks at this blindness and failure of Americans to look into their own hearts and see that they are part of the problem. Here are article highlights:

Same-sex
marriagewas legalized
nationwide last year in a landmark Supreme Court ruling but, as we enter 2016,
new data from GLAAD shows that many Americans believeObergefell v. Hodgeswas the finish line for LGBT equality.

Half of all non-LGBT Americans believe that gay people
currently have the same rights as everyone else, according to a Harris Poll
survey of over 2,000 adults commissioned by GLAAD for its second annualAccelerating Acceptancereport.

The findings only get more disheartening from there. Nearly
30 percent of non-LGBT respondents said they feel uncomfortable when they see a
same-sex couple holding hands or learn that their child’s teacher is LGBT. A
quarter of them believe that high rates of depression andsuicideamong LGBT people are “not serious”
and 27 percent said the same about violence against transgender people.

These numbers are an improvement from last year but not by
much. Many fell by only a few percentage points and some—like discomfort with
LGBT history lessons being taught in schools or at seeing an LGBT co-worker’s
wedding photo—were virtually unchanged. In 2016, it may be legal for a lesbian
to get married but she will still likely pause before planting a picture of her
spouse on her desk.

Over a third of non-LGBT respondents to the Harris Poll
survey—36 percent—said that social acceptance of LGBT people wasn’t a serious
problem, even though many of their own survey responses ironically prove that
it still is.

The facts about the current state of LGBT acceptance are
easy enough to consult: Over halfof all states have no statewide
employment non-discrimination law covering sexual orientation or gender
identity. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth arefour timesmore likely to attempt suicide than
straight kids, and a quarter of transgender youth have made an attempt.
Twenty-one transgender people, primarily young transgender women of color, weremurderedin the U.S. last year—the highest
recorded number in history. Those numbers don’t lie, and there are plenty of
other sobering statistics where they came from.

When same-sex marriage was legalized by the Supreme Court last
June, leaders of major LGBT organizations in the U.S. toldThe Daily Beastthat their fight was far from over, citing a wide range of
remaining issues including employment discrimination, anti-transgender
violence, school bullying, detention of LGBT immigrants, bisexual acceptance,
and LGBT youth homelessness.

What’s concerning now is just how many people think it’s over, and
just how wrong they are.

Somewhere between20 and 40 percentof homeless youth are LGBT but 37 percent of non-LGBT
respondents to the Harris Poll survey said the problem wasn’t “serious.” That
includes 10 percent who said it was “not at all serious.”

Nowhere has the GOP prostituted itself more to Christofascists and extremists than on the issue of same sex marriage. Despite the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell striking down marriage bans nationwide, Republican legislators continue to introduce state bills that would undermine the ruling or grant licenses to discriminate to the Kool-Aid drinking "godly folk." Nine such bills are currently in the Virginia General Assembly, all introduced by Republicans. Never mind that a majority of Americans support the Obergefell ruling - with today's GOP, its ALL about pandering to extremism and bigotry and racism. In Tennessee, an extreme GOP backed bill was introduced that would have costs that state $8.5 billion in lost revenues. Thankfully, the price tag shocked enough lawmakers that the bill was killed in committee. The New Civil Rights Movement looks at the GOP lunacy. Here are highlights:

Tennessee State Rep. Mark Pody's
bill that would have voided all marriages of same-sex couples, costing
taxpayers an estimated $8.5 billion, has been defeated. Lawmakers on the
House Civil Justice Subcommittee listened to religious and legal
arguments for about 90 minutes, but on a voice vote elected to not move
the legislation forward.

The Natural Marriage Defense Act would have declared all marriages of
same-sex couples "void and unenforceable in Tennessee," specifically
citing the Supreme Court's decision last year in Obergefell, stating it
is invalid and that the State would ignore it.

[A] state-required fiscal impact report found the legislation, should it become law, would cost the taxpayers of Tennessee $8.5 billion annually.
Those costs do not appear to include court and legal costs. The
majority of the costs would come as the withdrawal of federal funding of
Tennessee's Obamacare program, food stamps (SNAP), and welfare payments
(TANF).

While some of the debate focused on constitutional issues, including
nullification of a Supreme Court ruling, some, thanks to pastors who
spoke before the committee, included traditional anti-gay rhetoric. One
pastor warned that same-sex marriage is “the invasion of the wicked
agenda that is coming against the Church.”

Lawmakers were begged to offer Tennessee pastors "relief" from the fear
of being forced to marry same-sex couples, despite the obvious fact that
the First Amendment would prohibit such a governmental action. One
speaker insisted that clerks charged with issuing marriage licenses are
upset for having to do their job for same-sex couples. Kentucky clerk
Kim Davis was mentioned.

At the last minute an attempt was made to hold the bill over but on
technical grounds that was not allowed. It should be expected the
legislation, perhaps in a different format, will be filed again in the
next session.

As posts yesterday noted, things on the conservatives side of the political aisle are rapidly descending into such insanity that Saturday Night Live doesn't need any script writing. A verbatim quote of the lunacy is all that is needed to mock and ridicule the Republican Party base and those who seek to prostitute themselves to it. What needs to be remembered, however, is that none of this happened by accident or lack of design. The GOP establishment welcomed the Christofascists and descendants of segregationists into the party for short term advantage with no thought of the long term consequences such as when Karl Rove and George W. Bush rallied the crazy anti-gay extremists in 2004 with gay marriage bans in states around America. There was no long game, just short term victories. Now, the GOP has suffered a monumental and perhaps irreversible fall. A piece in the Washington Post looks at this decline. Here are excerpts:

The fixed smile on Donald Trump’s face as Sarah Palin unleashed her free-association, who-knows-what-she’ll-say-next harangue endorsing him
on Tuesday sent its own message. “How long do I have to stand here?” it
seemed to say. But of all the developments in the astonishing
Republican presidential contest, this moment told us what we need to
know about the state of a once-great political party.

Consider
the forces that brought Palin to the national stage in the first place.
In 2008, John McCain, running behind Barack Obama in the polls, wanted
to shake up the contest by picking a moderate as his running mate. His
first choice was then-Sen. Joe Lieberman, and he also liked former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge.

But McCain won the nomination against the will of the Republican
right as more-conservative candidates had fractured their side’s vote.
“He is not the choice of conservatives, as opposed to the choice of the
Republican establishment — and that distinction is key,” said Rush Limbaugh,
using language that is now oh-so-familiar. The establishment, Limbaugh
charged, had “long sought to rid the party of conservative influence.”

A
moderate VP choice would have been too much for Limbaugh’s legions. So
McCain, facing a full-scale revolt on the floor of the Republican
convention, gave up on Lieberman and Ridge, turning instead to Palin. A
new hero for the Limbaugh-Fox News disciples was born.

After Obama won . . . he angry grass-roots right — it has been there for decades but
cleverly rebranded itself as the tea party in 2009 — would be central in
driving the midterm voters the GOP would need to the polls. Since no
one was better at rousing them than Palin, old-line Republican leaders
embraced and legitimized her even if they snickered privately about who
she was and how she said things.

Today’s
Republican crisis was thus engineered by the party leadership’s
step-by-step capitulation to a politics of unreason, a policy of silence
toward the most extreme and wild charges against Obama, and a lifting
up of resentment and anger over policy and ideas as the party’s
lodestars.

Many Republicans are now alarmed that their choice may come down to
Trump, the candidate of a reality-show populism that tries to look like
the real thing, and Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.), an ideologue whom they fear
would lead their cause to a devastating defeat. There is an honorable
pushback against this outcome . . . .

But this is a battle that needed to be joined long ago . . . .
A showdown was required before the steady, large-scale defection of
moderate voters from the party. Now that opponents of Trump and Cruz
need the moderates, they are no longer there — except, perhaps, in
states where independents might cross into the party’s primaries to save
it from itself.

And instead of battling the impulses now
engulfing the party, GOP honchos exploited them. They fanned nativist
feeling by claiming that illegal immigrants were flooding across our
borders, even when net immigration from Mexico had fallen below zero.

Politicians whose rhetoric brought the right’s loyalists to a boiling
point now complain that they don’t much like the result. But it’s a
little late for that. Why shouldn’t the party’s ultra-conservatives and
its economically distressed working-class supporters feel betrayed? At
least with Trump, Cruz and Palin, they have reason to think they know
what they’re getting. “We are mad, and we’ve been had,” Palin declared
on Tuesday. “They need to get used to it.”

So watch for the establishment’s next capitulation. There are reports
that some in its ranks are already cozying up to Trump. Given the
record, there’s little reason to doubt this.

As the GOP presidential nomination circus descends into crazy land, the Christofascists are coming forward to underscore just how insane and anti-democracy oriented the GOP base has become. The misnamed Christian
Anti-Defamation Commission - which wants a license for "Christians" to discriminate against others who do not subscribe to their misogynous beliefs - is now pontificating that only Christians are eligible to hold public office and that uppity women should be barred from public office. Right Wing Watch has details. Here are highlights:

Gary Cass of the Christian
Anti-Defamation Commission released a new video today aimed at helping his fellow
right-wing Christians understand "the biblical qualifications for
political office," by which he meant that all of our elected leaders must
be Christians ... and men.

"What should be look for in our
elected officials?" Cass asked, rhetorically. "The first
qualification is they must be a Christian ... What a candidate professes about
God is absolutely critical, it will profoundly shape his leadership. Genuine
reverence for the Lord is the foundation of knowledge ... so we need a leader
who is alive spiritually and who will lead in the fear of God." And those leaders, Cass explained,
must be men.

"The biblical biological
requirement for office is you must be male," he stated. "Civil
leadership should be conceived of as an extension of the family and God's
created order. God established man as the head of the woman and the woman as
his helpmate ... In society, the same roles apply as is ordained in the family
and in the church."

"The ministry of justice that
God has given to the state is generally a man's job," Cass continued.
"Yet, there are exceptions in the Bible where God has raised up women like
Deborah to judge and even deliver Israel. But it's considered an indictment
when there's no strong, godly men to lead and protect their families and
society."

What can I say? These people have based their world and political views on the writings of anonymous authors/herders from more than 2000 years ago, who knew NOTHING of modern knowledge, science, and sexuality. A Harry Potter story or a Lord of the Rings story has as much substance to back it up as do the Old Testament writings.

Translate This Page

Contact Me to Order Title Work

LGBT Legal Services

About Me

Out gay attorney in a committed relationship; formerly married and father of three wonderful children; sometime activist and political/news junkie; survived coming out in mid-life and hope to share my experiences and reflections with others.
In the career/professional realm, I am affiliated with Caplan & Associates PC where I practice in the areas of real estate, estate planning (Wills, Trusts, Advanced Medical Directives, Financial Powers of Attorney, Durable Medical Powers of Attorney); business law and commercial transactions; formation of corporations and limited liability companies and legal services to the gay, lesbian and transgender community, including birth certificate amendment.

Disclaimer on Opinions and Content

This Blog contains content that may be innapropriate for readers under the legal age of 18. IF YOU ARE UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE, PLEASE LEAVE NOW. Thank you

This is an opinion and commentary blog and the opinions and contents of this Blog - including opinions expressed concerning opponents of LGBT equality - are the opinions only of the individual blogger and should not be attributed to any other individuals or to any organization of which the blogger is a past or current member.

Followers

Michael-in-Norfolk disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, operability, or availability of information or material displayed on this site and does not claim credit for any images or articles featured on this site, unless otherwise noted. All visual content is copyrighted to it's respectful owners. Information on this site may contain errors or inaccuracies, and Michael-in-Norfolk does not make warranty as to the correctness or reliability of the site's content. If you own rights to any of the images or articles, and do not wish them to appear on this site, please contact Michael-in-Norfolk via e-mail and they will be promptly removed. Michael-in-Norfolk contains links to other Internet sites. These links are provided solely as a convenience and are not endorsements of any products or services in such sites, and no information or content in such site has been endorsed or approved by this blog.